How to respond to 'The Islamic Dilemma'

[A175]

As has been stated before, one of the fundamental problems is that many Muslims conflate the Bible with the Injeel which is simply not the case.

The Injeel was the Gospel of Jesus, the message that he brought. There is not a single book in the Bible attributed to him. Only the New Testament includes passages about him, and large portion of it was written by a a guy who's own word is the only witness to his meeting with Jesus.

It's not the same book.

 

Just as well, within the first few minutes Wood is already talking about how the Bible says trinity and uses Matthew 28 as an example. The problem is that Matthew 28 doesn't claim trinity. The closest you will find translated from Aramaic does say father, son, and ruach hakodesh (which could roughly mean holy spirit)... but as has been stated before "son" meant quite a different thing. Consider the Lord's Prayer, all who pray it call God "father". So they would all call themselves sons or daughters.

 

I'm a Muslim. I believe in the scriptures that were sent. I do not believe in the Bible, although I once did.

There is no conflict there.

 

I think it would be far more productive if we all went about proving what we are rather than who we aren't, anyway. Don't tell others what makes them "wrong". Instead, show them how you are "right" (although the idea of it seems arrogant as well). Live Islam rather than preaching it, if that makes more sense to you.

[Enlightened Follower]

10 hours ago, placid said:

Hi Enlightened Follower,

　

I would just like to add something about that verse in Surah 9:

30 "The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God. They say this (only) with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times."

　

It is common in the OT that Prophets, Priests and some kings, like David and Solomon were called sons of God, --- and considering Ezra's dedication, and this statement, "He (Ezra) came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him." --- Ezra is credited with restoring worship of God among his own people in the new Temple in their own city of Jerusalem.

　

So the difference between what the Scripture says and what the Quran says, seems to be contradictory. --- Now do you think that God contradicts Himself?

　

There were some 360 idols in the Kabah, the House of Prayer in Mecca, when God instructed Muhammad to go and preach in Mecca that there is only ONE GOD.

--- The idolaters had to be converted, and the teaching of One God was the contention with the idolaters. --- Also some of the idols were 'sons and daughters, of gods,' --- so in rejecring other gods they rejected that anyone could be CALLED the 'son of God,' --- as both Ezra, and Jesus were.

Before it speaks of the virgin birth it says in Surah 3:

45 Remember when the angel said: O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is Christ Jesus, son of Mary;

　

The corresponding verse which was written some 600 years earlier is Luke 1:

35 "That Holy one to be born, will be CALLED the Son of God."

　

With Muslims, being convinced that God could not have anyone CALLED His son, they rejected the teaching of the OT, saying of those:

"They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times."

--- However, the statement is true, --- Ezra was called the 'son of God' in the OT, and Jesus was called the Son of God in the NT.

--- And in the Quran it says, God sent a son to Mary. --- Also it says in Surah 19:

35 It is not befitting (out of the ordinary) for God to have a son, Glory be to Him. When He decrees a matter, He says to it only "Be!" and it is.

　

Supposng we split the verse in two statements,

"The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God."

("They say this only with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times.")

　

Could it have been that since the strong teaching against God having anyone called 'His son' would be wrong to them, --- that they wanted to correct it?

The Original Quran was with Ali. --- When he presented it to Abu Bakr, and Umar, who became the first two Caliphs, they rejected it.

However, the many copies of Surahs that they had, were distributed among the people, and then, --- they were kept in somebody's house for some 20 years, before the third Caliph Uthman brought them all together. --- He had three scholars to assist him (but Ali was not one of them, though he was there all of the time).

--- It could have been that, not knowing the OT, when the four were studying and came across a statement that to them was wrong, they might have added their own correction.

--- Mr Uthman was not an Imam, and he had lied to his countrymen, and was murdered was he not?

　

I think this may have happened in a few cases where there seem to be some contradiction from God's word.

--- And if you rely more on hadiths than the Quran, then there is that much more influence from the opinions of men.

 

Hi placid,

They only had a disagreement on the tafsir or explanation of the Quran. As a book the Quran is complete no competing versions exist and the Birmingham Quran pages reveal a manuscript before the council set up by Uthman that bears the same suras that we have in the Quran today. Additionally from very early on during Prophets to even now there those who memorized the whole of the Quran from verse to verse and they had no distinctions in their memory of them and this before Uthman's time as well. 

Also, how can you say you think they set up their own correction when no evidence indicates they did they would've gone against the whole Muslim community at that time if they did and there would have been an uproar.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Enlightened Follower

[A175]

6 minutes ago, Enlightened Follower said:

They only had a disagreement on the tafsir or explanation of the Quran. As a book the Quran is complete no competing versions exist and the Birmingham Quran pages reveal a manuscript before the council set up by Uthman that bears the same suras that we have in the Quran today. Additionally from very early on during Prophets to even now there those who memorized the whole of the Quran from verse to verse and they had no distinctions in their memory of them and this before Uthman's time as well. 

Also, how can you say you think they set up their own correction when no evidence indicates they did they would've gone against the whole Muslim community at that time if they did and there would have been an uproar.

Kind of my thoughts on the matter as well.

The Qur'an was initially a spoken message that was memorized, was it not? So that was the protection... secured in the hearts of those who memorized it. It's the beauty of the Qur'an. You could burn every single book in the world, and by the end of the day we would have the Qur'an in print again.

So even if there is a different "version", it's not the Qur'an so it's still preserved as long as we have the real thing available.

Now everybody say "mashallah" ;)

[andres]

Hi175Hi175

Of course Jesus had an oral message, and we may call this "Injeel" . First generation Christians were convinced Jesus would return within their lifetime, so writing Gospels to preserve the word seemed not very necessary to them. When Christians realised that Jesus return may not be immediate, Gospels were written.

You dont believe in the Bible, but The Quran does not refer to the oral Injeel, the Quran refers to uncorrupted Christian and Jewish Books with no accusations that the Bible, edition 7th century, was corrupted.

Is this not a dilemma for you?

[Enlightened Follower]

6 hours ago, andres said:

Hi175Hi175

Of course Jesus had an oral message, and we may call this "Injeel" . First generation Christians were convinced Jesus would return within their lifetime, so writing Gospels to preserve the word seemed not very necessary to them. When Christians realised that Jesus return may not be immediate, Gospels were written.

You dont believe in the Bible, but The Quran does not refer to the oral Injeel, the Quran refers to uncorrupted Christian and Jewish Books with no accusations that the Bible, edition 7th century, was corrupted.

Is this not a dilemma for you?

Hi andres, 

It was understood/implicit(implied) that the Injeel was an oral text and additionally in regards to the time and location of Arabian society many religious groups had their own traditions preserving the legacy and teachings of their prophets for instance, the Jews of Arabia had the Israeliyat which are the sayings and traditions from their prophets past within Israel. So my main point is that the Quran doesn't have to refer to the Injeel as a oral text for it to be an oral text it is implied. Additionally, the context the Injeel is referred to although not stated as oral it is treated as the literal revelation from God Jesus received this "was" the Injeel. Whatever remained of it in Arabian society was likely as an oral tradition.

[andres]

Hi Enlightened

I am a little confused. How do you know the Injeel is oral tradition? And what is the Book that the Quran speaks about, if not the Bible?

[andres]

 

I have done some googling. Dont these quotes below show that the Torah and the Christian Gospel(s) existed uncorrupted where Muhammed lived?

In my understanding the quotes say they were in written form.

 

5.047 "Let  the  people  of  the  Injeel  judge  by  what  God  has  revealed  in  it.  If  any  do  fail  to  judge  by  (the  light of) what God has revealed they are those who rebel." 

 

5.043 But  why  do they come to you for decision,  when  they  have  (their  own)  Torah  before  them?    therein is  the  (plain)  command  of  God;  yet  even  after  that,  they  would  turn  away.  For  they  are  not  People  of Faith. 

 

32:023 "And  certainly  We  gave  Moses  the  Scripture,  so  do  not  be  in  doubt  encountering  it, and We made it a guide for the Children of Israel" 

[Skanderbeg]

Ask the People of the Book or better said Ask them what is in their Book is said in the sense  that the stories that Allah revealed to Muhammad s.a.w. are still existing in the Book and therefore are no fairy tales. 

But I understand it's loopy for some people because the Quran is the Criterion that shows what is still authentic and what is not and the condition is that one should believe in the Quran as the Word of Allah.

For someone who does not it doesn't make sense I think.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Skanderbeg

[A175]

10 hours ago, andres said:

Hi175Hi175

Of course Jesus had an oral message, and we may call this "Injeel" . First generation Christians were convinced Jesus would return within their lifetime, so writing Gospels to preserve the word seemed not very necessary to them. When Christians realised that Jesus return may not be immediate, Gospels were written.

You dont believe in the Bible, but The Quran does not refer to the oral Injeel, the Quran refers to uncorrupted Christian and Jewish Books with no accusations that the Bible, edition 7th century, was corrupted.

Is this not a dilemma for you?

It's not a dilemma for me at all.

First of all, within the definition of it, the Bible cannot be the Injeel regardless of it's oral or written. The Injeel was the Message given to Jesus, peace be upon him. Nowhere in the Bible is there a "Gospel of Jesus". There are gospels according to such and such, and even they have conflicts (not to mention unknown authors).

You see, it's no conflict to believe that perhaps Jesus came with a Message that was also written down in his time. The problem is that we do not possess it nor know of its existence.

Furthermore, the Bible contains much more than just the Gospels. Within it (depending on which version and which denomination you read) is an array of letters, thoughts, and visions on the New Testament side. Not to mention everything from Genesis to Matthew... you can't claim that the Old Testament is the Injeel, could you?

Even in the Old Testament you will find the idea that the Torah had been corrupted by scribes.

 

And that is why it's not a dilemma for me. The idea of corruption was self-evident even back then. And regarding the New Testament, the history of authorship will show the same. One of the greatest examples are the many additions made by scribes ("begotten" son, notes about clean/unclean meats, etc).

Look, I'm not saying your book is "bad". It's just not my book. It definitely was for quite a long time, but the more I study it the less I believed in it. Not the message, mind you, just the divinity of the book in general and a few technical aspects. I don't believe God has a masculine gender nor do I believe he rested on the sabbath from all the work he did. It's just not my thing anymore.  I don't believe Jesus is God nor any more of a "son" than you or I could be.

I am as fair and impartial as I can be about it, though. Even if I would never encourage someone to become a Christian, if I met a Christian that refused to deviate from his belief or his book, I would at least encourage them to study and follow the one they call their savior.

That's what I did, and alhamdulillah it led me to Islam.

[Enlightened Follower]

2 hours ago, andres said:

 

I have done some googling. Dont these quotes below show that the Torah and the Christian Gospel(s) existed uncorrupted where Muhammed lived?

In my understanding the quotes say they were in written form.

 

5.047 "Let  the  people  of  the  Injeel  judge  by  what  God  has  revealed  in  it.  If  any  do  fail  to  judge  by  (the  light of) what God has revealed they are those who rebel." 

 

5.043 But  why  do they come to you for decision,  when  they  have  (their  own)  Torah  before  them?    therein is  the  (plain)  command  of  God;  yet  even  after  that,  they  would  turn  away.  For  they  are  not  People  of Faith. 

 

32:023 "And  certainly  We  gave  Moses  the  Scripture,  so  do  not  be  in  doubt  encountering  it, and We made it a guide for the Children of Israel" 

This verse regarding the Injeel refers to those sedentary  group of Christians who had the original Injeel with them, you have to take into the Quran makes allusions to people of the past in several narrations. Additionally there are some laws in the Torah which are in agreement with the Quran and this what the verse you posted  is referring to.

[andres]

Hi A175

As I showed in my last post, the Quran say that the uncorrupted Injeel and Torah still existed when Muhammed lived. The Quran refers to them. Seemingly in the form of Books. So they must have been corrupted after the 7th century.

[Enlightened Follower]

4 minutes ago, andres said:

Hi A175

As I showed in my last post, the Quran say that the uncorrupted Injeel and Torah still existed when Muhammed lived. The Quran refers to them. Seemingly in the form of Books. So they must have been corrupted after the 7th century.

It doesn't refer to them as books the revelation of the Quran  before written on paper is also described  as book but it took an oral medium. Same with the Jewish and Christian scriptures of that time. For instance ebooks are also "books" but their medium and form in which they appear are entirely different. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Enlightened Follower

[A175]

35 minutes ago, andres said:

Hi A175

As I showed in my last post, the Quran say that the uncorrupted Injeel and Torah still existed when Muhammed lived. The Quran refers to them. Seemingly in the form of Books. So they must have been corrupted after the 7th century.

Negative, ghost rider. The pattern is full:

Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it… Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran 2:75,79) 

 

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Quran 3:78) 

 

And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made! (Quran 3:187) 

 

But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Quran 5:13-14) 

 

No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling. (Quran 6:91) 

 

One of the greatest problems is laziness in translation, and then cherry picking the results of it. People see the word "Gospel" in the Qur'an and say "omg look it's right there" without reading the whole thing. The Gospel of Jesus is not the gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John. It's the Injeel. It's just a different thing, and I really don't know how you don't comprehend that.

As they say: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

 

Example-

Obviously, the Bible claims that Jesus was crucified.

And, obviously, the Qur'an says otherwise.

So, obviously, it doesn't work out quite the way you want it to.

[andres]

28 minutes ago, Enlightened Follower said:

It doesn't refer to them as books the revelation of the Quran  before written on paper is also described  as book but it took an oral medium. Same with the Jewish and Christian scriptures of that time. For instance ebooks are also "books" but their medium and form in which they appear are entirely different. 

So when the Quran speaks about Books it actually means oral ones. As if Christians and Jews in Medina and Mekka had not written copies of Torah and Gospel!!.. As the Quran never mention that that these scriptures had been corrupted, we must assume the corruption happened after 650AD..

[andres]

13 minutes ago, A175 said:

.................... Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it… Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran 2:75,79) 

 

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Quran 3:78) 

 

Quran 3;78 actually suggests the Book is OK, only the readers read it wrong. On purpose.

And what "party" or "section"?  The Roman Catholic Church? Back in those days the entire Christianity!!  Does not sound like a cathastrope of that giant size. Sure Muhammed does not intend the Gnostics, or some sects in Mecca or Medina? 

[A175]

Let me answer you in the most direct manner I can-

Without any doubt whatsoever, had Rasulallah (saws) claimed that the current (at that time) Bible was indeed the uncorrupted and inerrant word of God, then Muslims would be reading that Bible instead of (or alongside) the Qur'an.

It simply didn't happen that way, and no amount of "oooh gotcha" games will change history.

Had that been the case, this conversation never would have happened. Think about that for a moment.

Please.

[andres]

The question is not what Muslims claimed after the Quran was published. The question is wether the Quran knew that the Roman Catholic Bible did not always match the Quran. My conclusion is that it did not. 

[A175]

Well your conclusion ignores both the Qur'an and the events around its revelation. I can't help you any more than that.

Like I said, had the Qur'an recognized the Bible as uncorrupted and inerrant, we'd all be following it.

[LeftCoastMom]

Well, there are some interesting statements in here. Christians don't believe God has a gender or form any more than Muslims do (what English pronoun are y'all using to refer to  the Almighty, btw?) The Gospels are considered to contain the message of Jesus. The rest of the NT contains the works of the early church and messages from the Apostles and first disciples. Most Bibles contain the same books. The Catholics have a few Deuterocanonicals that are in a separate section. But almost all of the preaching and teaching comes from the same books Protestants have. The oldest fragments of written scriptures we have from Arabia date from the 700's and it's highly doubtful they were the actual first ones there. The Scriptures were already in China by then...so how they  could have skipped Arabia is a mystery to me. Usually where you have a church building, you will have scriptures and this church dates from the 300's CE in what is now Saudi Arabia.

 

[Enlightened Follower]

1 hour ago, andres said:

So when the Quran speaks about Books it actually means oral ones. As if Christians and Jews in Medina and Mekka had not written copies of Torah and Gospel!!.. As the Quran never mention that that these scriptures had been corrupted, we must assume the corruption happened after 650AD..

Your argument is nill even before the original gospels became gospels they were recited orally and memorized by the early Church Fathers before they were written down on paper as the early church was being persecuted, I don't know how to say this but you haven't addressed my central argument namely the Arabian Christians and Jews had a distinct set of traditions which included different beliefs from mainstream Christianity and Judaism of which we don't have with us today.

[Enlightened Follower]

25 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, there are some interesting statements in here. Christians don't believe God has a gender or form any more than Muslims do (what English pronoun are y'all using to refer to  the Almighty, btw?) The Gospels are considered to contain the message of Jesus. The rest of the NT contains the works of the early church and messages from the Apostles and first disciples. Most Bibles contain the same books. The Catholics have a few Deuterocanonicals that are in a separate section. But almost all of the preaching and teaching comes from the same books Protestants have. The oldest fragments of written scriptures we have from Arabia date from the 700's and it's highly doubtful they were the actual first ones there. The Scriptures were already in China by then...so how they  could have skipped Arabia is a mystery to me. Usually where you have a church building, you will have scriptures and this church dates from the 300's CE in what is now Saudi Arabia.

 

Nope the historians don't seem to agree most importantly on the Arabic Bible there was no written Bible up until the first writings of the Quran were produced and they were also accompanied by oral traditions preserving the sayings of prophets past. And the early Church Fathers had to remember the gospels orally during their time of persecution so they definitely had oral traditions before they were written down why couldn't this have been the case for the Christians of Arabia who were traders who would have likely kept oral records of Jesus's sayings themselves inline with the way the Jews kept oral traditions. For instance, the Jewish Talmud is the greatest example of oral traditions which were eventually written down after the destruction of the Temple.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Enlightened Follower

[LeftCoastMom]

Okay, lol, well...not in the universe I inhabit. The Rylands Papyrus from Egypt ( fragment of the Gospel of John...and they weren't even still writing on papyrus by Mohammed's time) dates from circa 125. The persecutions didn't end until the early 300's after Diocletian. Just because people even today have the Bible, or parts of it ,memorized does not mean there was/is no written text. The early Church  folks very quickly had Scriptures.

Looking closer to " Arabia" we have more close to that era and over 300 manuscripts of the Syriac Bible from the 400's. It's Aramaic translations from Greek and Hebrew but I find it hard to believe that, since even the Apostle Paul spent some time with the Arabs, that no one bothered to write it in Arabic. But if the Arabs having only oral traditions is an article of faith for you, so be it. Not much can be dialogued in that case.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by LeftCoastMom

[Enlightened Follower]

The "Arabs" he spent time with were Arameans who spoke Aramaic/ Syriac that was before the people of Syria and Lebanon adopted an "Arab" identity, what I meant was the Arabs of the Gulf, i.e. what is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen and specifically in the Arabic script. Also, Egyptians at that time spoke and wrote in Coptic.

[Enlightened Follower]

3 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Okay, lol, well...not in the universe I inhabit. The Rylands Papyrus from Egypt ( fragment of the Gospel of John...and they weren't even still writing on papyrus by Mohammed's time) dates from circa 125. The persecutions didn't end until the early 300's after Diocletian. Just because people even today have the Bible, or parts of it ,memorized does not mean there was/is no written text. The early Church  folks very quickly had Scriptures.

Looking closer to " Arabia" we have more close to that era and over 300 manuscripts of the Syriac Bible from the 400's. It's Aramaic translations from Greek and Hebrew but I find it hard to believe that, since even the Apostle Paul spent some time with the Arabs, that no one bothered to write it in Arabic. But if the Arabs having only oral traditions is an article of faith for you, so be it. Not much can be dialogued in that case.

 

The "Arabs" he spent time with were Arameans who spoke Aramaic/ Syriac that was before the people of Syria and Lebanon adopted an "Arab" identity, what I meant was the Arabs of the Gulf, i.e. what is now Saudi Arabia, Yemen and specifically in the Arabic script. Also, Egyptians at that time spoke and wrote in Coptic and were also not considered as "Arab" at that time.

[Enlightened Follower]

3 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Okay, lol, well...not in the universe I inhabit. The Rylands Papyrus from Egypt ( fragment of the Gospel of John...and they weren't even still writing on papyrus by Mohammed's time) dates from circa 125. The persecutions didn't end until the early 300's after Diocletian. Just because people even today have the Bible, or parts of it ,memorized does not mean there was/is no written text. The early Church  folks very quickly had Scriptures.

Looking closer to " Arabia" we have more close to that era and over 300 manuscripts of the Syriac Bible from the 400's. It's Aramaic translations from Greek and Hebrew but I find it hard to believe that, since even the Apostle Paul spent some time with the Arabs, that no one bothered to write it in Arabic. But if the Arabs having only oral traditions is an article of faith for you, so be it. Not much can be dialogued in that case.

 

Also, I appreciate this discussion on the church's early history as there legitimately some new things you brought up that I was unaware of. However, my point was to illustrate that the early church had oral records of their gospels so what may have prevented Arabian society; a society of trade and entrenched with a record of keeping oral traditions of their history from having their own oral gospels or texts of what Jesus said and did?

Additionally, I am not relying on blind faith to set up my theory I am using examples found in hadith literature, the customs of the Arabian society from that time, and the fact that the Jews had oral traditions known as the Israeliyat of what their prophets said and did from Israel. So it seems very likely taking all these points in consideration that this gospel was very much an oral record of Jesus's sayings and teachings!

Edited February 29, 2016 by Enlightened Follower

[andres]

10 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Your argument is nill even before the original gospels became gospels they were recited orally and memorized by the early Church Fathers before they were written down on paper as the early church was being persecuted,

The Gospels were written in the second half of the first century, before the "church fathers", based on historic tradition from eyewitnesses. Unlike the Quran, the Gospels are narratives composed by 4 different authors, not texts that were recited orally. 

[andres]

10 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

, I don't know how to say this but you haven't addressed my central argument namely the Arabian Christians and Jews had a distinct set of traditions which included different beliefs from mainstream Christianity and Judaism of which we don't have with us today.

Sorry for that, but what can I say to this claim when you do not say what this oral tradition say? Was it in consensus with the Quran or not? 

[Enlightened Follower]

3 hours ago, andres said:

The Gospels were written in the second half of the first century, before the "church fathers", based on historic tradition from eyewitnesses. Unlike the Quran, the Gospels are narratives composed by 4 different authors, not texts that were recited orally. 

Hi andres,

What I meant was the Quran was written down as soon as the Prophet had revelation by his companions and they were memorized AND recited orally by certain people who managed to memorize the Quran from start to finish.

[andres]

1 hour ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Hi andres,

What I meant was the Quran was written down as soon as the Prophet had revelation by his companions and they were memorized AND recited orally by certain people who managed to memorize the Quran from start to finish.

Maybe this was so, who knows. But what about Christians and Jews in the arabian peninsula? Had they only oral access to their scriptures? And were they the uncorrupted ones? And how can you know?

[Enlightened Follower]

13 minutes ago, andres said:

Maybe this was so, who knows. But what about Christians and Jews in the arabian peninsula? Had they only oral access to their scriptures? And were they the uncorrupted ones? And how can you know?

As the quran  and hadith both refer to oral records which were passed down to Arabian society through the centuries. 

[andres]

2 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

As the quran  and hadith both refer to oral records which were passed down to Arabian society through the centuries. 

Where in the Quran can this be found?

 

 

[iCambrian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus

[Enlightened Follower]

4 hours ago, andres said:

Where in the Quran can this be found?

 

 

Where the gentleman A175 mentioned previously. 

[Enlightened Follower]

4 hours ago, iCambrian said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_papyrus

Hi, 

The script is in Greek no residing Semitic peoples knew Greek unless they were apart of the Byzantine Empire at that time.

[iCambrian]

I do not know what point youre working toward. ^